SUSAN C. HALPIN, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
KRAEER FUNERAL HOMES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment granted to a funeral home in a case involving the family of Donald C. Halpin, Jr., who encountered their deceased relative's body being displayed incorrectly during a funeral viewing. The court held that whether the family is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages for the funeral home's conduct involves factual questions that must be determined by a jury, not resolved on summary judgment.
Summary judgment was improper because whether appellants are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages involves disputed factual questions that must be determined by a jury, not the trial court. Tortious interference with rights involving dead human bodies is excluded from the 'impact' rule that normally governs intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, allowing recovery based on outrageous conduct.
[1] Summary judgment is improper when genuine issues of material fact exist.
[2] Tortious interference with rights involving dead human bodies is excluded from the "impact" rule governing intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is axiomatic that the granting of a motion for summary judgment cannot stand where there is a disputed genuine issue of a material fact.”
Establishes the standard for when summary judgment is improper and supports reversal of the trial court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants arranged with Kraeer Funeral Homes to conduct the funeral and cremation of Donald C. Halpin, Jr.'s remains. When the family arrived for vie…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Impact Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
GARRETT, Judge.
This is an appeal of the trial court’s granting of appellee’s motion for summary judgment as to appellants’ claims for compensatory and punitive damages.
Appellants made arrangements with appellee to conduct the funeral and cremation of the remains of Donald C. Halpin, Jr. When the family arrived for the viewing, they saw that the body in the casket was not Mr. Halpin. Appellee’s employees attempted to convince the family that it was Mr. Halpin. After some discussion, the family was asked to go to dinner while appellee sought to locate Mr. Halpin’s remains. When the family returned to the funeral home, the casket contained Mr. Halpin’s body, but the family was not satisfied with his appearance.
We reverse. Whether or not appellants are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages are factual questions to be determined by the trier of fact. It is axiomatic that the granting of a motion for summary judgment cannot stand where there is a disputed genuine issue of a material fact. Tortious interference with rights involving dead human bodies is excluded from the “impact” rule which normally governs causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Kirksey v. Jernigan, 45 So. 2d 188 (Fla.1950); Strachan v. John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital, 109 N.J. 523, 537, 538 A. 2d 346, 353 (1988) (citing W.P. Keeton, D. Robbs, R. Keeton, and D. Owens, Prosser & Keeton on Torts § 54 (5th ed.1984)).
As to the compensatory damages claim, if the wrongful acts are such as to reasonably imply malice, or where, from the entire want of care of attention to duty, or great indifference to the persons, property or rights of others, malice can be imputed, a cause of action will lie. Sherer v. Rubin Memorial Chapel, Ltd., 452 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Malicious conduct is proven if the acts complained of would arouse resentment by an average member of the community, leading him or her to exclaim “outrageous.” Smith v. Telophase National Cremation Society, Inc., 471 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). When determining a compensatory award claim, the jury considers if the facts prove outrageous conduct.
As to the punitive damages claim, if a claim for compensatory damages is established, a claim for punitive damages is also established. Kraeer Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Noble, 521 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). The same evidence of outrageous conduct is utilized in determining awards for compensatory and punitive damages. Payton Health Care Facilities v. Estate of Campbell, 497 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 500 So. 2d 545 (Fla.1986). When determining a punitive damage claim, the jury considers the degree of the proven outrageous conduct. Smith 471 So. 2d at 170.
None of the factual questions addressed should have been resolved by the trial judge for it is the conclusions of the jury which should prevail and not the views of the judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT HEREWITH.
HERSEY, C.J., and POLEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. City OF Minneola, 575 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…, mishandling it, mutilating it, or preventing its proper burial. See, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Torts § 868; Kirksey v. Jernigan, 45 So. 2d 188 (Fla.1950); Dunahoo v. Bess, 146 Fla. 182, 200 So. 541 (1941); Halpin v. Kraeer Funeral Homes, Inc., 547 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), rev. den., 557 So. 2d 35 (Fla.1990); Smith v. Telophase National Cremation Society, Inc., 471 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Sherer v. Rubin Memorial Chapel, Ltd., 444 So. 2d 1176 and 452 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Publica…
-
Mellette v. Trinity Mem'l Cemetery, Inc., 95 So. 3d 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…sket and simply threw her clothes on top of the body. Id. at 574. Applying Kirksey, the district court reversed the dismissal of the complaint. In a similar case alleging tortious interference with a dead body, Halpin v. Kraeer Funeral Homes, Inc., 547 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), the court reversed a summary judgment in favor of the funeral home where, again, the wrong body was placed in a casket for a viewing. The employees in that case also attempted to convince the mourners that the stranger’s body wa…
-
Gonzalez v. Metro. Dade Cnty. Pub. Health Tr., 626 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…, 238 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1970). [*1032] In support of their claim for damages, appellants rely chiefly on three recent Florida cases and the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 868 (1979). The cases cited by appellants, Halpin v. Kraeer Funeral Homes, Inc., 547 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), rev. denied, 557 So. 2d 35 (Fla.1990), Williams v. City of Minneola, 575 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 589 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1991), and Mallock v. Southern Mem. Park, Inc., 561 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), are easily d…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kirksey v. Jernigan, 45 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1950)
- Ursula H. Smith v. Telophase Nat'l Cremation Soc'y, Inc., 471 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Sherer v. Rubin Mem'l Chapel, Ltd., 452 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Payton Health Care Facilities, Inc. v. Est. OF Morris Hugo Campbell, 497 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Kraeer Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Noble, 521 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)